Predicto Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Lawyers for one of Jerry Sandusky's adopted sons said the man has told authorities the former Penn State assistant football coach abused him. The lawyers issued a statement Thursday naming Matt Sandusky, one of Jerry Sandusky's six adopted children, and saying that the 33-year-old had been prepared to testify on behalf of prosecutors at his father's sex abuse trial. "During the trial, Matt Sandusky contacted us and requested our advice and assistance in arranging a meeting with prosecutors to disclose for the first time in this case that he is a victim of Jerry Sandusky's abuse," Andrew Shubin and Justine Andronici wrote in the statement. "At Matt's request, we immediately arranged a meeting between him and the prosecutors and investigators. "This has been an extremely painful experience for Matt and he has asked us to convey his request that the media respect his privacy. There will be no further comment." The statement was issued after jurors in the ex-coach's child sex abuse trial began deliberating 48 charges against him. The jurors are sequestered during deliberations. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/21/sandusky-adopted-son-says-former-penn-state-coach-abused-him/#ixzz1yTkYfDQc Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinz4Life12 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 wow. i'm totally not surprised and thought this would have come out earlier. so was he one of the 10 victims that has just been identified or is this a separate victim altogether? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 What a sick ****. He is so screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 22, 2012 Author Share Posted June 22, 2012 What a sick ****.He is so screwed. Is he? The jury is sequestered and doesn't know about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Is he? The jury is sequestered and doesn't know about this. Is there any way this can affect his trial? This seems like a pretty big deal. The defense called intent and character into question for the other victims. Kind of hard to spin this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 22, 2012 Author Share Posted June 22, 2012 wow. i'm totally not surprised and thought this would have come out earlier.so was he one of the 10 victims that has just been identified or is this a separate victim altogether? Separate I think. People are saying that he was prepared to testify, and would have been called as a rebuttal witness if Sandusky had taken the stand - but Sandusky didn't. I hope the prosecutors didn't overthink this and screw it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Wtf. Shame on the prosecutors, he should have been on the stand regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 22, 2012 Author Share Posted June 22, 2012 Is there any way this can affect his trial?This seems like a pretty big deal. The defense called intent and character into question for the other victims. Kind of hard to spin this one. Can't affect the trial. Evidence is closed and double jeopardy has attached. The jury will decide based only on the evidence they got at trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spjunkies Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 There is no way that sick creature will get off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Can't affect the trial. Evidence is closed and double jeopardy has attached. The jury will decide based only on the evidence they got at trial. That is so dumb if they could have had him testify earlier and chose not to. They must be really confident that they can win this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinz4Life12 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Separate I think. People are saying that he was prepared to testify, and would have been called as a rebuttal witness if Sandusky had taken the stand - but Sandusky didn't. I hope the prosecutors didn't overthink this and screw it up. why wouldn't the prosecutors call him regardless? what's the strategy there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissU28 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I keep seeing that the defense attacked the character of the victims....what about Mike McQueary? I would think his testimony alone would be enough to put Sandusky away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 22, 2012 Author Share Posted June 22, 2012 That is so dumb if they could have had him testify earlier and chose not to. They must be really confident that they can win this. Yeah. Just like the OJ prosecutors were. :doh: ---------- Post added June-21st-2012 at 06:18 PM ---------- why wouldn't the prosecutors call him regardless? what's the strategy there? Not sure. Haven't been following it close enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 There is no way that sick creature will get off. I dunno, man. It only takes one. God forbid, but there maybe one hard core Nittany Lion fan on that jury who can't see the horrific facts behind that pretty blue curtain. This isn't to say all Penn State folk are like that, but there are those select few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger187126 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 for a while the defense painted this all as a big misunderstanding of a guy who treated boys different than what we consider normal with some money grabbing sprinkled in. i think the kid came in a little late and the prosecution didn't want to put him up there and have the defense turn it into "see he treated his family in the same manner, that's just how he is" (and i don't mean sexual assault, i mean the defense's picture of him horsing around with young boys in the nude because that's how things are in locker rooms) edit: not to mention it was probably in the best interest of the kid's mental state to not have him take the stand if it wasn't necessary, especially since the defense has been painting the prosecution as gang leaders for these kids feeding them all information. a late witness might have looked bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwack Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 That is so dumb if they could have had him testify earlier and chose not to. They must be really confident that they can win this. Roger Cossack said earlier today on Sportscenter that the prosecution didn't put him on the stand because the adopted son has defended his dad from day 1 and now he's suddenly changing his tune. Something doesn't seem right with the son, so it's probably better to keep him from testifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Just the fact he's been so nonchalant, they said he's been smiling and hamming it up in the courtroom. Can you imagine being so relaxed being faced with these charges? He's guilty as hell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Can't affect the trial. Evidence is closed and double jeopardy has attached. The jury will decide based only on the evidence they got at trial. I would think that double jeopardy has attached, to the 47 or however many counts he's charged with. I would assume that this might represent new charges, though. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Matt's ex-wife went to court to get a restraining order against her and Matt's children spending the night at their grandparents house and it was granted. Statute of limitations had probably run on including Matt in the case. ---------- Post added June-21st-2012 at 10:33 PM ---------- I would think that double jeopardy has attached, to the 47 or however many counts he's charged with. I would assume that this might represent new charges, though. Right? You are correct. If Sandusky is acquitted then double jeopardy attaches only to those charges of which he is acquitted. If there is no verdict on any of the charges, then he can be retried on those charges and if there are new charges, then he can be brought to trial on new charges. I wonder if there are any other victims that the prosecution knows about and they are waiting to see what happens with this trial. If found guilty, Sandusky will go to jail for a long time and if he's acquitted, they could bring new charges/trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I think with Matt the prosecution couldn't guarantee that he wouldn't have a change of heart on the stand. All he'd have to say under questioning is that his adoptive father never touched him and there's reasonable doubt right there. I think it was wise for prosecution now to take that risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forehead Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I may have read this wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that including him (Matt Sandusky) would have dragged the trial out much longer for some reason, and the prosecution didn't think his testimony was necessary with that in mind. Maybe I'm wrong, just thought I saw that one one of the various websites. By the way, if anyone cares, they might find this related article interesting. http://www.blackshoediaries.com/2012/6/19/3094803/Inside-CYS-Sandusky-Penn-State Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I think I've avoided the news about this case because it just thoroughly disgusts me. When I heard about his son on the radio, it turned my stomach. Sandusky is a sick, sick man. I believe he's criminally responsible, but I also believe he is severely mentally ill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Ever since I saw the interview he did with Bob Costas where he was asked if he was sexually attracted to young boys and he had to think about it and give an ambiguous answer, I pretty much knew he was guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I'm not going to say I told you so, after I was criticized in another thread last year, for saying this sexual deviant was like a kid in a candy store with house full of adopted and foster boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Yahoo! News has an article explaining why Matt didn't testify. And apparently, the prosecution can bring charges in Matt's case because the statute of limitations has not run. http://news.yahoo.com/ncaaf--matt-sandusky-jerry-trial-allegations-child-abuse-foster-son-jury-deliberations-20120622.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.